4.0

STAKEHOLDER MAPPING RESULTS, PROSAVANA

Stakeholder Mapping, ProSAVANA
Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programmeon

InfluenceandInterest Rating

National government
bodies (mostly MASA),
but also theEnvironment Ministry,
Finances, and others.

The national government creates theframe conditions for investments in
Mozambique. These are manifest atseveral different levels, ranging fromthe Constitution at the uppermost
level to the specifics of project andland authorizations on the other.
Also included in the frame
conditions are verbal
communications and policy
statements from national
government officials.

The GoM at this point isstrongly in favour of
ProSAVANA. Recent
statements show government’s
desire to adapt ProSAVANA
polices and strategies to theMozambique context. The Majol
team was specifically instructedby the MASA ProSAVANA
team leader that what is needed
is a more “Mozmbican”
ProSAVANA. The Majol team
were also told that positive civilsociety dialogue is critical.

National government expectations
are that a widely supported
ProSAVANA programme will
enable the Government to reduce
absolute poverty all across the
ProSAVANA landscape.
Associated with this is the hopethat it will improve the image ofthe government in thesesometimes politically sensitive
areas.

Critically influential. GoM
polices and approvals
make or break
ProSAVANA.

High Influence,
medium Interest. If
dialogue can bepromoted with civil
Society, interest willchange to high. If
not, GoM will findways to distanceitself from theprogramme leading
to its demise. Somehigh ranking
officials may havetheir personalprestige and evenpolitical futures atstake.

Provincial government,
especially provincial
representations of the
agriculture, planning,and environment
ministries

Provincial governments in theory
are the provincial arms of thenational government and thus theirinfluence is closely aligned with thatof the national government. In
practice, government is notmonolithic, and provincial
governments of course will lobby
and favor decisions and activities
that benefit the provincial situation
rather than the nation as a whole.

The Provincial Governments
affected are highly in favour of
ProSAVANA. They also shareconcerns that Mozambican
voices be more incorporated into
project plans. Majol received
specific orientations from the
Nampula Provincial Governor
to improve dialogue and makesure Mozambican institutions
and civil society have input into
ProSAVANA.

Similar to national Government,
above. They have a particularpartisan interest, however, andfear the loss of the programme due
to conflict.

High Influence, as it willbe they who will be
involved in the day to day
implementation of
ProSAVANA.

High Influence andHigh Interest, due tothe previouslymentioned partisaninterest.

DPA Niassa

DPA is the head of the Provincial
Department of Agriculture.

Producers want the program,but there appears to be an
outside influence, causing
programme disruption.

Increase of agricultural production
and productivity; better care ofenvironment; development of
eco/bio production systems.

Provincial Departments ofAgriculture have key
positions in
implementation, though

Influence medium.
Interest high.

Government entities:

Alfonso Sebastian,Acting Director

MAJOL

P. 16

Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence on
Programme
not much political voice.

InfluenceandInterest Rating

DPA Zambezia

DPA is the head of the Provincial
Department of Agriculture.

He is concerned about:developmental models are notinclusive, so Mozambican
people’s role might be that oflabourers only; concerned about
disrespect or negligence of theenvironment; there is also
danger of misuse of fertilisers.

New technologies. Income forcommunities. Less poverty.

Good relationship with
CSOs, can bring influence
to bear.

Influence medium tohigh, interest high.

The Focal Point is the first point ofcontact between Civil Society and
the Government. Main task isdissemination of information, bothto Government staff and outside
world.

ProSAVANA has been
politicised. Civil society does notwant to see that the Master Planis evolutionary and will changeover time. People confuse otherprojects with ProSAVANA.

ProSAVANA must be
Mozambicanised. It will be
important to use business-oriented
approach to develop thesmall/family farmers.

Provincial Departments ofAgriculture have key
positions in
implementation, though
not much political voice.

Influence medium tohigh. Interest high.

The Focal Point is the first point ofcontact between Civil Society and
the Government. Main task isdissemination of info, both toGovernment staff and outside
world.

Littledisclosure
inthebeginning, when designing was
already going on. Appearance of
foreigners raised suspicion. By
the time info started flowing,
distrust had started. Illiteracy
sometimes results in poor
perception,orintakingadvantage by opportunists.
Contract production model can
reduce food crops + foodsecurity.
ProSAVANA
notalways being given chance toexplainitself,becauseofantagonism from civil society.

Can be highly effective due togreat depth of baseline study.
Master Plan constantly being
improved, with Model experiences
feeding back into the Master Plan.
Rapid Impact Projects alreadyshowing results. No land grabbingin Niassa.

Provincial Department ofAgriculture
have
key
positionin
implementation

Influence medium tohigh.
Interest
medium.

None

Better technical advice available.
Organisation of transport forfarmers’ products.

Farmers’ perception of
ProSAVANA will greatly
depend on how the frontline extension is done.

Influence
low.
Interest medium.

Ilidio Bande, Director

DPASA Nampula
Americo Wasiquete,
Focal Point
ProSAVANA.

DPASA Niassa
Kanath Sousa da Silva,
Focal
Point
ProSAVANA; Alberto
Enoch
Cuinhane,
SeniorAgricultural
Technician

Districtgovernment(including sub-levels
suchasAdministrative Posts)

The district government relates tothe provincial government as theprovincial government relates to thenational one.

SDAE
Chimbunila,
Niassa Province

District
extension
officefor
economic
activities,
includingagriculture.

Jeremias Cosme, Rural
Extension
Network
Supervisor

MAJOL

P. 17

Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programmeon

InfluenceandInterest Rating

SDAE
Malema,Nampula Province

District
extension
officefor
economic
activities,
includingagriculture.

Barriers in public consultations
due to actions by CSOs. They do
not represent farmers, who want
the program. Instability drives
investors away.

Financing for small farmers in a
revolving fund. Available to those
who have DUATs. Survey wasdone.

Farmers’ perception of
ProSAVANA will greatly
depend on how the frontline extension is done.

Influence
low.
Interest medium.

District
extension
officefor
economic
activities,
includingagriculture.

Insufficient info reached thebasis in the beginning. This
created opening for planting of
misinformation, including fearof land grabbing. Wrongrepresentation of opinion at
district level and below by
provincial and national CSOs.
Antagonism and suspicion due
to presence of foreigners.

Improved
extensionmodels.
Change in approach towards
better consultations. Avoid seeing
the proposed Working Committee
as a battleground.

Farmers’ perception of
ProSAVANA will greatly
depend on how the frontline extension is done.

Influence
low.
Interest medium.

The ruling party is in favor of the
program, but experience has shownthat individual politicians will use
any project success to further theirown political agenda. Because ofthis,therehave been cases whereindividual politicians of opposition
parties have taken positions against
certain investments.

The program must be aware thatit may be used as a politicalpawn and must maintain astrictly apolitical approach. In
the rural areas, resistance fromthe opposition parties can beovercome through fairness aswell as opening lines of directcommunication.

Politicians of all parties will use
the program to further their own
ends.

Handledbadly,
anypolitical party could raise
opposition to the program.

High influence, lowinterest.

Federation of private sector tradeassociations, aiming to promote
good business environment inMozambique through dialogue with
Government.
Non-profit,
nonpartisan. Organises studies +research to influence public policy
and business environment.

Concrete action required from
Government to show that they
are serious to implement rightpolicies, best practices, createclean environment, not justpromises. Government image istarnished and weak.

To be implemented in partnershipwith private sector. Will create
opportunities for new companies
and economic development innorth Mozambique. Shift ofbusiness emphasis from Maputo,
provided business training isundertaken for companies inprovinces to be able to competewith Maputo companies. CTA

CTA is key to private
sectorinvolvement.
Encourages members toengage in Corporate Social
Responsibility activities, inalliances with Government
or CSOs, e.g. endemic
diseases.

Influence
interest highHenriques
Director

Joao,

SDAE Alto Molocue,
Zambezia Province
Arsénio Pedro Candua,
Director

Political parties

National,
provincial
and district business
community, including
MSME's and producer
organizations.
CTA
Luis Eduardo Sitoe

MAJOL

P. 18

high,

Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programmeon

InfluenceandInterest Rating

Land and social justiceNGOs
arecreating
international reputational
issues for ProSAVANA.
This is backfiring to even
the
level
of
donor
Governments.

Interest might be
medium,but
influence is high.

considers new government more
open than old one, CSOs should
grab their chance.
Internationaland CSO's

NGOs

International NGOs and civil society
at national level are opinion makers,
with particular influence over public
opinion, the news media, andpotential partners such as USAID.
Some NGOs have a very specificfocus on land and social justiceissues, while others are more
focused on community development
or environmental issues.

Social justice and land focusedNGOsarefollowing
ProSAVANA pronouncementson land rights very closely.
Inadequate flow of informationand lack of proper consultation
beforehand have caused muchmisinformation and suspicion.

Development NGOs would most
likely be interested in partnerships
in their fields of focus.

Community development
NGOs have much to offer
in the way of experience
with
community
development efforts.

Note that once the Working
Committee
hasgainedsomeexperience it will be necessary to
update this stakeholder engagement
plan with a specific list of the mostimportant stakeholders and what isneeded to engage with them further.

Action Aid
Country
Director
Amade Suca, office:(21)314342/5,
823094310,
pers.cel
828671300

MAJOL

Involved in rights-based work,
agricultural extension, livelihoods,
and many others. Helped convene
Portucel
Advisory
Committee.
Linked to Action Aid International.
Director is a high profile andinfluential opinion leader in civilsociety.

These organizations can be
opinion leaders, and set
the tone of the national
dialogue.
Has been involved in attempts
to start a dialogue, and incampaigns against ProSAVANA
since the beginning. Has process
issues with the top-down
implementationmanner.
Against being asked to correct
documents, but wants to cocreate. Not against aims of
ProSAVANA as such, but
against implementation style,and has serious issues withinadequate safeguards for theland rights of people and otheruncertainties.

Liked idea of 3rd party mediation
to solve current situation. Has set
clear
preconditionsforinvolvement in dialogue process.
1: must be genuine openness to cocreate ProSAVANA, looking at allissues, everything must be on thetable. 2: discussion must include
development model, how/if to
involveagrobusiness
indevelopment with focus on family
sector. 3: doubts if co-creation
process can be completed withincurrent deadline, even that must
be negotiable. 4: communications
must be improved at all levels.
Clear focal points, moments andmechanisms
must
be

P. 19

Potential influence:
Is opinion leader and cansway others to cooperate.
If conditions are not met,
he is quite willing to let
ProSAVANA die andmany will follow. He
believes there is already ahard core of NGOs thathave written ProSAVANA
off: Justiça Ambiental,
UNAC, OMR and others.
Many
don’t
read
documents any more,even himself.

Influencehigh.

rating:Interest
rating:medium. If dialoguecanbecreated,interest high; but if
not, couldn’t careless (0 interest).

Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programmeon

InfluenceandInterest Rating

They are financing the
campaign for land rights(ASCUTE).

Influencehigh,partly because ofinternational reach.

created.Under those conditions iswilling
tohelp
co-createsomething Goverment and Civil
Society can support.
Oxfam Mozambique
Adelson Rafael

WeEffect
Diamantino
Nhampossa (Director)
Telf: +258 824904050
Email:
diamantino.nhampossa@weeffect.org
Inácio Timane(Director de Programa)

International organisation, advocacy
and monitoring of programs,
agriculture,
naturalresources,
womens rights. Working with 62
partnerorganisations
inMozambique.

Oxfam is a co-founder of
ASCUTE. They want especiallythe land rights aspect of
ProSAVANA addressed.

More inclusive. Approach must bechanged to assure land rights forthe poor.

A Swiss NGO that promotes self
help among agriculturalists,
adopting a rights-based approach.
WeEffect finances other NGO’s suchas UNAC, OMR, AENA. Has been
involved in the campaign against
ProSAVANA since 2009, but now
thinks that the time has come todialogue. Has funds available topromote such dialogue.

The Major problem of
ProSAVANA was very pooor
communications.

WeEffect feels that there may be
an opportunity for CSO’s todialogue with ProSAVANA andhas funds available for this.
WeEffect hopes for a concerted
effort to develop a vision andstrategies leading to a better
ProSAVANA.

As a financer and opinion
Leader, WeEffect has anextremely high influence.

High Interest, highInfluence. One of the
Most strategic
partners. Needs tobe cultivated andlistened to very
closely

A real development program
would first and foremost allow
communities to influence the typeof development that is chosen.

Broad based grassroots
structures could influence
implementation of many
aspects.

Interest high, as
current
programruns
counterto
ADECRUphilosophies.

ProSAVANA lacks baseline dataand studies.
ProSAVANA master Plan as
written now smply goes down
the road travelled by ProAGRI
and PAMA, other failed projects.
Need new models.

Interest medium.

ProSAVANA as is does not
respond to the real needs of the
population.

Inacio.timane@weeffect.org

MASA needs to do a better jobof outreach, communication,and dialogue.
National
NGO’s(Maputo based):
ADECRUadecru2007@gmail.com
Vicente Adriano cel 82
5132059

MAJOL

Advocacy, basic rights, social
inclusivity, use of natural resources,
grassroots organisation, inclusion ofyouth and women in development
activities. Extensive network of
local,
district,andprovincial
community organisations.

Government behaviour and lackof dissemination of information.
Imposition of the entire programfrom above, lack of broaddialogue. Wrong choice ofdevelopment
models,methodology not linked to realneeds.
Brokenpromisesregarding making info available.
News about ProSAVANA has

Influence on local
population medium,on other CSOs low(too leftist).

P. 20

Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programmeon

InfluenceandInterest Rating

led to large scale land grabs inthe area by high placed
individuals with aim to benefit
from land deals with foreign
investors.
CESC
Paula Monjane

CTV
Tel.:
21321257
http://www.ctv.org.mz

Human and civil rights sensitisationand protection, development ofawareness of civil rights and duties.

Against.
Want
to
scrap
ProSAVANA. They have doubts
about use of land legislation for
ProSAVANA. Already muchland
grabbing,
not
by
ProSAVANA but by influential
peopleinanticipationof
ProSAVANA. Government lost
credibility by breaking up
dialogue.

Gaps in land legislation are to thedetriment of people’s rights.
People are ignorant about laws
and are at a disadvantage innegotiations.
Internationalpressure will leave Goverment noway out: either change or stop
ProSAVANA.

Working with local NGOs.
Want to be involved toprotect those who cannot
protect themselves.

Interest high.

Environmental
studies.

ProSAVANA
will
promotepoverty through landlessness.
Government is manipulating tostifle civil society.

Co-create new project, instead ofmanipulating civil society.

Large network of village
paralegals who monitor
violations of rights.

Influencehighthroughenvironmental.
studies.
Interest
moderate, but canbecome high.

National Forum of Community
Radios. Their institutional approachis rights-based.

Part of campaign
ProSAVANA”

Against ProSAVANA
present form.

Large
network
atcommunity and national
level. Strong leadershipdefendingespeciallywomen’s rights.

Influence High.

National organisation, focus on
womens rights and feminism. Strong
grassroots
network,
memberorganisations in all provinces. Modelfor other NGOs.

Opposed to ProSAVANA, but
won’t talk in absence of othercampaign members.

Want to close it down.

Strong voice because oflarge membership.

Influence
high,Interest medium.

Platform of CSOs, nationally and insome provinces. Was instrumental
in setting up the Development
Observatory, a watchdog body inthefieldsofpublicdebt,
development
finance,andparticipatory planning.

GreatsilencearoundProSAVANA,
noofficial
information.
Absenceofdialogue, no democratic space,
in
line
with
Government
behaviour in many other fields.
Are against the top-down

Want a robust discussion on allaims and means, open debate, andreal change if the majority
demands it.

Have done their own
study
on
agriculturaldevelopment
issues.
Throughmemberorganisations
ontheground GMD can exert
stronginfluenceonInterest moderate,
more as part ofgreater issue of styleofgovernment.
Influence high via
memberorganisations on the

advocacyandMarcos Pereiro
ForcomBenilde Nhalvilo

Fórum Mulher
Graça Samo, Directora
Executiva Tel.: 21414
037
www.forumulher.org.
mz
GMD
Eufrigina dos Reis
Mandela Tel.: 21419523
divida@tvcabo.co.mz
http://internationalbu
dget.org/groups/grupo-moambicano-da-

MAJOL

“No

to

P. 21

in

its

High
influence
through networks.

Interest medium.

Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

dvida-gmd/

Potential Influence
Programme
implementation.

InfluenceandInterest Rating
groundGovernment is not transparent
and inclusive in its dealings with
ProSAVANA.
Apparent
openness is not genuine, people
are the same as before.
Agriculturaldevelopment
model not clear, especiallyregarding use of land. The Plan
is not what Mozambique wants
and needs, inappropriate model.
Also critical of Japanese andBrasilian Governments.

Are against. ProSAVANA should
be closed. Would only consider
participating if Government gives
a clear commitment.

They
are
adversary.

strongInterest
none,
influence high.

There are a number of local NGOs in
the three provinces. Some of themfocus on land rights, while others
have a generalized focus on one or
another aspect of community
development.

As of this writing, local NGOs in
Zambezia and Niassa have notraised many issues. In Nampula
civil society has split, with asmall but vocal group (withbacking from Maputo) arguingthe total scrapping of the
program (No to ProSAVANA),
and a majority asking forchanges in methodology, incertain aims, as well as
guarantees regarding people’s
rights (ASCUTE, Humanisationof ProSAVANA).

Consensus exists over the main
focus:
improvementofproductivity and market access of
smallholder agriculture.

Issues here are those of
reputation, with somelocal NGOs having goodconnections with media
and other outlets. These
are opinion leaders andshould be treated as such.

Low interest, highinfluence.

Associação Nacional de Extensão
Rural. Food security, advocating in
natural resources and extractive
industry, gender issues.

Big lack of clarity about program
intentions. Early intentions were
not right. Much was changed,
later it became better.

ProSAVANA has approaches that
benefit farmers. Against any
development
that
promoteslandlessness. Government mustchange stance towards CSOs.

Host of the network of
agriculture+
naturalresources. Want to help
promote the dialogue.

Interesthigh,influence moderate
to high.

Vanessa Passades, Joao
Nhampossa

If the programme will also include
projects with outside investors,
there should be no forced
resettlement,
andfair
compensation must be paid.

aonNational organisation (central).

Av.Mao Tsé Tung, 549
1º, Flat D, Maputo Tel.:
21496668 / 21496668
Cel:
843106010/
823061275
http://ja4change.org/index.php/pt/contact

Provincial and local
NGOs

Programme Expectations

methods of imposing the
programme. Doubts about basic
rights and food security issues.

Humberto
Zaqueu(intvw)humbertozaqueu@gma
il.comJusticia Ambiental

Programme Issues

Nampula:
AENAJordãoMatimule
Junior,Director
Executivo 843024421
matimulejunior@yahoo.com.br

MAJOL

P. 22

Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programmeon

InfluenceandInterest Rating

Akilizetho

Akilizetho builds links to local
government.
Strengthens
community
development
committees. Deals with the rights ofparticipation and capacity building

Concern that no-one had
infoabout the program. That
communities did not participate,were not consulted. High risk ofcorruption
andland
grabbing.Clear strategies need to
be defined for family sector.
“Small farmer" is a controversial
term, could mean production ofcommodities, not for foodsecurity.

"Humanization of ProSAVANA".
Agriculture is a system and not an
isolated issue.

Throughcommunity
development committees
as well as links to local
governments

Interesthigh,influence moderate

Network of 10 farmer associations,
530 members. Production of food
crops
and
cotton,for
own
consumption and sales

No proper consultations were
held, no answers to questions
given.

Expect to have a say in the
program design. Extension of
credit for inputs and improvementof production. No intimidation, no
land grab. Proper representationin consultations, all sectors
represented.

Asaorganisation,
influence.

Influence
Interest high.

Ensuring land rights of communities
areregistered.
Promotingunderstanding of land and forest
laws. Assistance in sustainable useof land.

Lack
of
info,
poor
communication
methods,
broken promises, accusations,poor engagement.

Respect
forfarmers
rights.
Protection of farmers seeds andother resources. Credit guarantees.

Relatively minor

Interesthigh,influence moderate(working
in5
districts)

Human rights in communities,
family law, land law, assistance inobtaining DUATs.

Implementation
modalities
unclear. No consultation at all.

Genuine consultations need to bemade.

Through church. “Padresagainst ProSAVANA”.

Interest
influence
medium.

Focus on land security andownership.
Financed
byNetherlands government through
ITC. Well organised throughregional offices and technical staff.
Cover 14 districts.

No
peasants
andnocommunities consulted for theplan until 2013. Even then,comments were not considered.
What commercialisation model?
What about food crops? Not
against the programme, but

Inclusivity.

Good
grassroots
organisation
andreputation
with
rural
population.

High influence andhigh interest.

AntónioMuagerene,
Director Cel.:

FDCM (Forum DistritaldeCamponesas,
Mutuali)
Manuel
Massaua,
UNAICA

Pres.

Pedro
do

grassroots
not muchlow.

Dionísio
André–
Animador Associativo
Forum Terra
Waly Manuel, ProjectManager
Justiça e Paz
Padre Jacinto Augusto,
Coordinador
doSecretariado

ORAM
Calisto Ribeiro

MAJOL

The name ProSAVANA is an
insult; Nampula has no savanna,just miombo; this is anindication that dialogue andstudies are lacking.

P. 23

high,
high toRelevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programmeon

InfluenceandInterest RatingGood
communication
channel with CSOs.

High
influence
because of large
membership.
Interest moderate.

against the way the process isconducted.
PPOSCN
AntónioMuagerene,tel 26218541, 826061426
António Lagres

Solidaridade Nampula
Antonio Mutoua(vicepresidentof
Nampula platform)

UPCN
Costa
Presidente

Estevao,

865184605

Platform with large membership ofCSOs, monitoring policies andprograms of Government on District
and Provincial level. Also coordination of member activities

Not
against,but
overallobjectives not clear. Somemodels not suitable. Poor
ProSAVANA communications.
Research is done mostly oncommodities. Credit systems so
far not working. Submittedcomments and are waiting forreaction.

More inclusivity and better
communications. In favour of“humanised” ProSAVANA

National
NGO,
works
on
monitoring of Government policies
and programs in food security andnatural resources.

Not against; commented on
MasterPlan but have not had areaction.

Expect to have Master Planchanged according to comments,
and approved.

Influencehighbecause of positionin platform, haveworked in advocacy
and monitoring for along time.

The name ProSAVANA is an
insult; Nampula has no savanna,just miombo; this is anindication that dialogue andstudies are lacking.

Interest moderate,
but only if changes
are made.

Steppedorganisation:
Farmers
Union at provincial level is aconglomerate of district unions,which again are a group of local
associations. No direct farmer
members in provincial or nationalorganisations.

ProSAVANA based on foreign
concepts. No empowerment offamilysector.
No
publicconsultation before projects
started.

Stop and start afresh. Involve
platforms and CS organisations.
Strong emphasis on family
farming
sector.
Commercial
farming only if it supports foodproduction. Against private landownership.
More
open
consultations.

Throughinternational
contacts much influenceon donor opinions.

Interesthigh,influence high

Association of 14 farmers
Lussanhando, Lichinga districtat

Rapid Impact Project gave someassistance, but not enough

Betterimplementation,
more
technical assistance, larger loans

MinimalInfluence
interest highActive in 8 districts, going up to 10.
Land delimitation for communities,
interpretation and extension of land
law,partnerships
betweencommunities & private companies,

Many issues unclear, not enoughinfo. What is a small producer?
Link between land rights andsmall producers. How will cash
crops
affectfood
crops?

ProSAVANA should focus on
support to small farmers. Landmatters should be made clear.

ITC finances a lot of CSOs
that
could
assistin
ProSAVANA
implementation, or hinderit.

Influenceandinterest both high.

Links with the farmer baseare not as strong as theyclaim.

Niassa:Associacao
Setembro25

FilipePresidente

Nbuane,

ITC-F
Nelson Jackson, Gestor
Provincial
http://www.itc.co.mz
/

MAJOL

P. 24

low,

Relevant Stakeholder

ORAM
Felix Cossa, Delegado
Provincial
Cel.:822770749
Kossa.felix33@gmail.comIntvw
Leonardo
Antonio
Abilio,Program Offcr

ROADS
EmílioMuempezar,
Coordenador
Tel.:27131487
Cel.:
822904789

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programmeon

InfluenceandInterest Rating

natural resource management.

Authoritarian and intimidating
attitude of Government.

Focus:
land
demarcationforcommunities&associations,especiallyforcommunity
associations focusing on women.
Support the channelling of 20%
community shares in commercial
forestry. Increase awareness of land
law and law on flora and wildlife
protection. Provincial branches in
the whole country. Focal points indistricts. In 7 corridor districts in
Niassa.

Happy
withprovincial
Government, but critical ofarrogant implementation style ofGovernment projects at districtlevel. Manipulation of use of theland law to benefit Government
officials
and
other
well
connected individuals. No issues
with ProSAVANA itself, it
hasn’t started.

ProSAVANA could be a big boost
for the development of theeconomy and rural areas of
Niassa.

Very good contacts at
grassroots
level.
Wellestablished.

Influencehighbecause of contacts

Land delimitation, environmental
protection
andconservation,
sustainable development. Work in 4
or 5 districts implementing projects.

Criticalofarrogant
implementation
styleofGovernment projects at districtlevel. Manipulation of use of theland law to benefit Govt officials
and other well connectedindividuals.

Any
investment
welcome,including ProSAVANA. Could bea big boost for development. But
when? What will it look like?
Inclusivity?
Consultationsofparties should not be done by
Government, but by platforms like
FONAGNI. Previous condition
was inclusivity, especially ofpeople on the ground, notintermediaries. Those who are
anti-ProSAVANA
andantidevelopment, what do they want?

Manycontacts,
established.

Interest high,Provincial farmers union with 11
district unions. Claims 22000
members.

Secrecy, lack of info, mistrust.
Uncertainty about land rights
and management, the family
farming
sector,real
beneficiaries, and Government
attitude.

Increased
production
andproductivity are good things. If
family farm sector is targeted, it
will have much benefit.

Speak for a lot of farmers,
but less than they claim.
Can still be a big force pro
or contra.

Influence medium,
interest highRights of women peasant farmers.
Eight focal points in Zambezia.

There was exclusion of CSOs
from the start. The Master Plans
do not reflect reality on the
ground. Designed without input
from people affected.

More scope for affected people to
be involved in planning anddecision making.

Through
womenorganisations in working
areas (rice production).

Influence medium,
interest high.

Intvw:
Agostinho
Chiporo, Vice Pres ofBoard of FONAGNI
andmember
of
ROADS

UPCN
Abdul Magomba

wellInterest high.

Influence medium

Zambesia:
AMCELA
Luisa da Silva, Exec.
Director

MAJOL

P. 25

Relevant Stakeholder

Profile and Status

Programme Issues

Programme Expectations

Potential Influence
Programme

FONGZA

Dialogue body between CSOs andthe government of Zambezia, +other actors and stakeholders. Partof FONGZA are thematic working
groups (networks) of CSOs, anddistrict platforms.

Exclusion of CSOs from start ofthe program. The major problem
incommunication
withcommunities lies in the start ofthe program before communities
were consulted.

Bottom-up design, not top-down.
Clear statements of intents,
strategies and models are needed.

Influence
dialogueconsultations

Focused on catalysing communities
to gain positive leadership, andprepare before any contact withinvestors. Main beneficiaries arerural communities, groups of farmer
associations or others living on thebasis of use of natural resources fortheir survival.ITC works with
providers of various services from
more vibrant OCSs in protecting
rights of communities, as well aswith private sector.

Lack of adequate preparationand consultation of NGOs andcommunities. Questions thedevelopment models and lack ofcommunity participation.

Network of NGOs in Environment,
Natural Resources, and Community
Development

CSO dedicated to land and resourcerights. This is a national delegationof a national organization.

Marcos do
Presidente

Amaral,828920020;
Amade
Naleia, Coordenador
Cel.:825503920
gppdz@yahoo.com.br
ITC-F
HilarioManager
Initiatives

Patricio,Land

RADEZA
Daniel Maula,
Director

Oram Zambezia
Lourenço Duvane

MAJOL

Exec.

on

InfluenceandInterest Rating

throughandInfluence moderate
to high, interest
high.

Communication mechanisms at alllevels from the bottom to Tokyo.
Information on plans and roles
available to all parties. Investment
yes, but inclusion and organisationof communities a must from thestart.

Finances a lot of CSOs thatare active and key players
in ProSAVANA districts.

Interesthigh,influence high.

CSOs excluded since beginningin 2005. Improving production
techniques only works if farmers
are organised and prepared.
This is not the case, top-down
found them unprepared. Why
monoculture cash crops at
expense of “real” food crops?
Master Plan poorly done, had tobe changed often, a “Chameleon
Master Plan”. No logic, no clear
paths.

Government to promote open andtransparent communication with
CSOs, and avoid opportunism +gossip among state workers. Test
ProSAVANA in a few districts
first.
The
Government
ProSAVANA team should not
only include agronomists but also
other specialists. Very positive
move for MASA to seek
rapprochement.

Strong presence in all
districts of Zambezia gives
it strong voice.

Influence
interest high.

There are huge communication
problems
between
DPASA
Zambezia and Civil Society.

Actively working with WeEffect toimprovethe
dialogueinZambezia.

Highlyinfluential,
cooperated with WeEffectto organize a stakeholder
seminaralreadyinZambezia, to develop
better communications.

Influence high.

P. 26Interest higth.

high,

MAJOL

P. 27

4.1

SU MMARY OF RESULTS

The following table shows a summary of results of the consultations. Color Coding is as follows:Red

No to ProSAVANA, unwilling to dialogue.

PurpleWill dialogue if certain conditions are met. Most NG’s here very clear that these conditions consisted of the following, as best summarized by
Action Aid Director Amade Suca: 1) Genuine openness to ‘co-create’ProSAVANA, looking at all the issues, ‘everything must be on the table’. 2)
Discussion must include the development models to be used, including how/if to involve agrobusiness in family-sector focussed agriculture
development. 3) Due to doubts that‘co-creation’ process can be completed within current deadline, even deadlines must be negotiable. 4)
Communications must be improved at all levels. Clear focal points, moments and mechanisms must be created. Most also liked the idea of 3rdparty mediation to solve current situation.

Yellow

No clear institutional position taken on ProSAVANA

Green

Supportive of ProSAVANA. Note that every institution coloured ‘green’ as in favour of ProSAVANA also noted the need for it to change before
they could endorse it fully. Not one ‘ green’ organization was prepared to accept ProSAVANA as is. All called for better dialogue and for Civil
Sciety input to be taken seriously. See Stakeholder Map above for details.

No colour

Government Institutions. By their nature, these do not have independent positions vis a vis ProSAVANA.

Interview Results, Stakeholder Mapping

Organisation	
   Location	
   and	  	
   Organisation	
  
Name	
  
Type	
  

Interview	
  
type	
  

Interview	
  Stakeholder	
  Notes	
   on	
   Map	
  file?	
  Completed?	
  Survey	  Position	
  with	  Respect	
  to	  ProSAVANA	  Monkey	  Completed?	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Action	
  Aid	  NGO	  (Int)	
  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

CTV	
  

Nat’l	
  NGO	
  telephone.	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Maputo:	
  
	
  

Not	
   dead	   against.	
   Will	
   participate	
   if	
   conditions	
   are	   met	   and	  	
  right	
   climate	
   is	
   created	
   among	   CSO’s	
   (see	
   purple	
   color	
   coding	
  above).	
  √	
  Suggests	
   that	   ProSAVANA	
   should	
   be	
   open	
   to	
   co-­‐creation	
   of	
  
	
  

MAJOL

P. 28

Organisation	
   Location	
   and	  	
   Organisation	
  
Name	
  
Type	
  

Interview	
  
type	
  

Interview	
  Stakeholder	
  Notes	
   on	
   Map	
  file?	
  Completed?	
  

CESC	
  

Nat’l	
  NGO	
  telephone	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

No	
  to	
  ProSavana	
  

CTA	
  

Nat’l	  NGO	
  forPrivate	
  sector	  coordination	  telephone	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

In	
   favour	   of	   dialogue	
   with	   ProSAVANA	
   yet	   wants	  improvements.	
  	
  CSO’s	
  should	  ‘grab	
  their	
  chance’	
  to	
  dialogue.	
  Forum	  Mulher	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	
  

√	
  

√	
  

telephone	  Survey	  Position	
  with	  Respect	
  to	  ProSAVANA	  Monkey	  Completed?	
  project.	
  	
  GoM	
  should	
  stop	  trying	
  to	
  ‘manipulate’	
  civil	
  society.	
  

No	
  to	
  ProSavana	  	  Oxfam	  NGO	  (Int)	
  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Not	
   fighting	   ProSAVANA	
   but	   rather	
   land	
   grabbing	
   (ASCUTE).	
  Against	
   some	
   design	
   and	   implementation	
   methods	
   of	  ProSAVANA.	
  Prepared	  to	
  discuss	
  on	
  same	  terms	
  as	
  ActionAid.	
  ADECRU	  Nat’l	
  NGO	  skype	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Against	
   this	   ProSAVANA.	
   If	
   fundamental	
   discussion	
   under	  right	  conditions,	
  could	
  participate.	
  

GMD	
  

Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Very	
   interested	
   in	
   ProSAVANA.	
   As	
   forum	
   not	   against,	
   but	  some	
   members	
   are.	
   Will	
   participate	
   in	
   initiatives	
   that	
   will	
  strengthen	
  dialogue	
  between	
  CS,	
  Gov’t	
  and	
  any	
  other	
  actors.	
  But	
  mechanism	
  must	  be	
  open,	  honest	
  and	  transparent.	
  Justiça	  Ambiental	  Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

No	
  to	
  ProSAVANA	  WeEffect	  International	
  
NGO	
  

In	
  Person	
  

√	
  

One	
   of	
   the	   earliest	
   activists	   against	
   ProSAVANA,	
   now	  favouring	
   dialogue,	
   but	   hotes	
   that	
   MASA	
   and	   ProSAVANA	
  must	
  open	
  up	
  to	
  CSO’s.	
  

√	
  
	
  

Niassa:	
  
ORAM	
  

	
  
Nat’l	
  NGO	  	  in	
  person	  ROADS	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  

MAJOL

	
  
√	
  

	
  
√	
  

	
  
√	
  

	
  
Want	
  
to	
   be	
   of	
   help,	
   but	   contributions	
   must	   be	
   valued	
   and	  taken	  seriously.	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Looking	   forward	
   to	
   ProSAVANA,	
   but	   with	   corrections	
   and	  greater	
   inclusivity.	
   Discussion	
   should	
   not	   be	
   mediated	
   by	  P. 29

Organisation	
   Location	
   and	  	
   Organisation	
  
Name	
  
Type	
  

Interview	
  
type	
  

Interview	
  Stakeholder	
  Notes	
   on	
   Map	
  file?	
  Completed?	
  DPA	
  Niassa	
  Gov’t	
  entity	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

DPA	
  Focal	
  Point	  Gov’t	
  entity	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Survey	  Position	
  with	  Respect	
  to	  ProSAVANA	  Monkey	  Completed?	
  Government.	
  

	
  

	
  

Lussanhando,	
   Associacao	
   25	
   Farmers	  de	
  Setembro	
  Association	
  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

	
  
√	
  

	
  
With	
  improvements,	
  ProSAVANA	
  is	
  welcome.	
  

SDAE	
  Chimbunila	  Gov’t	
  entity	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

ITC-­‐F,	
  Niassa	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

	
  
Not	
  
enough	   info	   to	
   decide	
   for	   or	
   against.	
   Consultations	  however	
  should	
  be	
  led	  by	
  neutral	
  party.	
  UPCN	
  Niassa	
  Provincial	
  Farmers’	
  Union	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

No	
   to	
   this	   ProSAVANA.	
   If	
   some	   things	
   are	   clarified,	
   then	  perhaps	
  yes.	
  More	  openness	
  to	
  dialogue	
  and	
  change	
  needed.	
  	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	  	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

	
  
Dialogue	
  platform	
   welcome,	
   but	   involve	
   established	
  structures.	
  Nampula:	
  
ORAM	
  

	
  

	
  
√	
  

	
  
√	
  

Akilizetho	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Discussion	   platform	
   very	
   welcome,	
   but	   use	   existing	
   platforms	
  too.	
   Want	   to	
   "humanise"	   ProSAVANA.	
   Most	
   of	
   Nampula	
  network	
   against	
   the	   ‘No	
   to	
   ProSAVANA’	
   campaign,	
   and	   not	  aligned	
  with	
  UNAC.	
  UPCN	
  Nampula	  Provincial	
  Farmers’	
  Union	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

No	
   to	
   ProSAVANA.	
   Want	   to	
   co-­‐operate	
   and	   give	
   input,	
   but	  the	
  process	
  must	  start	  from	  scratch.	
  

√	
  

Want	
   ProSAVANA,	
   but	   want	
   clear	
   models	
   and	   want	   to	
  contribute.	
   Directly	
   involved,	
   or	
   through	   approved	
  representatives,	
  not	
  imposed	
  ones.	
  Forum	
  Distrital	  Camponesas,	
  Mutuali	
  

MAJOL

de	
   District	
  Farmers’Union	
   in	  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

P. 30

Organisation	
   Location	
   and	  	
   Organisation	
  
Name	
  
Type	
  

Interview	
  
type	
  

SDAE	
  Malema	
  in	
  person	  Gov’t	
  entity	
  Interview	
  Stakeholder	
  Notes	
   on	
   Map	
  file?	
  Completed?	
  
√	
  

Survey	  Position	
  with	  Respect	
  to	  ProSAVANA	  Monkey	  Completed?	
  

√	
  
	
  

Forum	  Terra	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

AENA	
  

Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

DPA	
  Focal	
  Point	  Gov’t	
  entity	  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Pedro	
   Carvalho	
   (Opinion	  Leader,	
   former	
   member	
   of	  OMR)	  Individual	
  in	
  person	
  

	
  

in	
  person	
  

√	
  

Solidaridade	
  telephone	
  

√	
  

Justicia	
  e	
  Paz	  
PPOSC	  Nampula	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	  NGO	
  platform	
  in	
  person	
  

√	
  	
  

√	
  

	
  

	
  
Discussion	
  platform	
  very	  good	  idea,	
  but	
  make	   sure	  to	
  involve	
  existing	
  platforms.	
  

	
  

Not	
   against	
   ProSAVANA,	
   but	   against	
   the	   current	
   method	
   of	
  implementation.	
  He	
  suggests	
  to	
  use	  the	
  Agriculture&Natural	  Resources	
  Network	
  to	
  organize	
  the	  dialogue,	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  working	
  better	  than	  platform.	
  

	
  

Commented	
  on	
  MasterPlan,	
  want	  to	
  continue	
  discussion.	
  

	
  

Interested	
  in	
  participating	  in	
  dialogue,	
  but	  it	  must	  be	
  must	  be	  a	
  genuine	
  consultation	
  with	  the	
  community	
  and	  include	
  civil	  society.	
  telephone	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Not	
   against,	
   submitted	
   comments	
   on	
   Master	
   Plan	
   in	
   writing	  but	
  still	
  waiting	
  for	
  answer.	
  

√	
  
	
  

Zambezia:	
  SDAE	
  Alto	  Molocue	  	
  Gov’t	
  entity	  UNAC	
  Alto	  Molocue	
  District-­‐level	
  farmers’Union	  	
   person	
  
in	
  

	
  

√	
  

	
  

√	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

telephone	
  

	
  No	
  position	
  stated	  because	
  of	
  level	  of	
  representation,	
  though	
  nationally	
  UNAC	  is	
  in	
  the	
  ‘No	  to	
  ProSAVANA’	
  Campaign.	
  	
  	
  

√	
  
	
  

MAJOL

√	
  

Want	
  to	
  participate	  in	
  dialogue.	
  In	
  favour	
  of	
  ProSAVANA,	
  but	  with	
   some	
   changes.	
   Current	   ProSAVANAMaster	
   Plan	
   has	  some	
  valuable	
  approaches.	
  

√	
  

Antonio	
   Lagres	
   (Opinion	  Leader,	
   former	
   member	
   of	  both	
  CARE	  andSolidaridade)	
   Individual	  	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	
  

√	
  

	
  
Not	
  
‘No	
   to	
   ProSAVANA’,	
   but	   no	
   to	
   the	  current	
   process	
   and	   to	  non-­‐participation.	
   No	
   to	
   land	
   usurpation	
   (ASCUTE).	
   Doors	
  
open	
  to	
  meaningful	  discussion.	
  

	
  
P. 31

Organisation	
   Location	
   and	  	
   Organisation	
  
Name	
  
Type	
  

Interview	
  
type	
  

Interview	
  Stakeholder	
  Notes	
   on	
   Map	
  file?	
  Completed?	
  DPA	
  Zambesia	  Gov’t	
  entity	  in	
  person	
  

ORAM	
  

Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  ITC-­‐F,	
  Zambezia	
  Nat’l	
  NGO	  in	
  person	
  

	
  
√	
  

FONGZA	
  NGO	
  platform	
  in	
  person	  AMCELA	  Nat’l	
  NGO	
  RADEZA	  Nat’l	
  NGO	  √	
  Survey	  Position	
  with	  Respect	
  to	  ProSAVANA	  Monkey	  Completed?	
  

√	
  
	
  

	
  
Very	
  
interested	
  in	
  the	  dialogue.	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Many	
   open	
   questions;	
   ‘investment	
   yes,	
   but	   communities	
  
must	
  be	
  included’	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Agreed	   to	
   participate	
   in	
   the	   founding	   meeting	
   and	   co-­‐
ordinate	
  the	  Zambezia	
  NGOs	  telephone	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Would	
   like	
   to	
   participate	
   in	   dialogue,	
   even	
   though	   a	
   founding	  member	  of	
  ‘No	  to	
  ProSAVANA’.	
  in	
  person	
  

√	
  

√	
  

√	
  

Would	
   like	
   to	
   participate	
   in	   dialogue,	
   even	
   though	   a	
   founding	  member	  of	
  ‘No	  to	
  ProSAVANA’.	
  

√	
  
	
  

Result Totals
4 Institutions hardline against ProSAVANA (3 National NGOs and one Provincial Farmers Union)
7 Institutions strongly against, but will talk if dialogue conditions are met (4 National NGO’s, 2 International NGO’s, one Provincial Farmers’ Union)
2 Institutions with no clear position (one National NGO, one Provincial Delegation of National NGO)
19 in favour of ProSAVANA, but with some changes (2 Opinion Leaders, 12 national NGO’s, one international NGO, 2 provincial NGO forums, 1 District
Farmer’ Union, one Farmer’s Association)
7 Government Entities
39 Interviewees, Total

	
  

MAJOL

P. 32